Power Issues

The key notion that most people use in the concept of organizational analysis is power. According to theorists, the existence of power is the premise that drove the formation of the concept of organization. They explain that power interactions degrade general social life elements, resulting in unequal power (Kearins 1996). Review on the power concept inside organizations shows the arguments and the little knowledge and comprehension of power demonstrated by most employees. The definition of power is contentious and inherently evaluative.  Evidence indicates those power theorists as much as people indicate the minimal application of their researchers in social setups. Foucault’s theory of power is extrapolated to be central in social aspects within institutions (Kearins 1996). The theory is developed as a combination the analysis of modern regimes of institutions that control and monitor behaviors within margins. The research developed by Foucault is a study used in the analysis of organizations.

Functionalist Conception of Power

Most power conceptions regard it as an attribute or entity within which everything processes. There are three main power dimensions according to the theorist (Barnes 2000). First, he begins with the power resident in the bodies of individuals, then there is the charismatic power that is based on personalities of people and lastly is the power of position or office that individuals possess or alternatively seek to have. The possession power is attributed to resulting in dependency relationships according to organization theories.

Behaviorist theorists elaborate that power can exist without being manifested. They explain that power is mainly a capacity. However, in specific situations, there is an elaboration that power defined as a capacity is completely evident through effects. Barnes (2000) explains that power is related to electricity and gravity and hence its existence to individuals via its effects has resulted in a much easier way to identify its consequences than to describe its basis and nature. The approach that is assumed to be the common sense model leads to understanding power effects and identification of the effects of power without the exploration of the exact definition of power.

The approach by most researchers of organizational analysis to the issue of power visibility has a similarity that is focused on power effects tacitly equating it to influence, decision making and authority. A theory on the primitive address on power it is elaborated as a means of governance and domination and that it is understood and owned. Organizational explanation of power explains that when an individual A has power over a subordinate B, A could get the subordinate to undertake an activity that they would not do. However, this type of power description has several assumptions including; first, that power could be possessed (Kearins 1996). Subsequently, there are writers that elaborate on organizational power who explain power to be something that could be harnessed and significantly incorporated in a firm for good use.

There are studies that describe the attainment, use and promotion of power as a commodity that people can acquire, share, delegate, and exchange. Implicit to the above elaboration attributes is the conceptualization of power as a dormant dispositional paradigm. Clegg elaborates that the explanation of dispositional power to be that an individual has the capacity to influence the traits of other individuals despite not being able to exercise power. There is a limitation to the above dispositional theory as it cannot be quantified and not compared to relative power by the Functionalists theorists (Kearins 1996). There is no measure of potential power and power according to Foucault can only be quantified after it is exercised. He emphasizes that the existence of power is only in action.

Progressively, another assumption to the functionalist conceptualization of the individuals A and B, the theorist elaborates that power can be utilized by groups (Kearins 1996). In relation to the group view, power can be employed by collective parties including committees, members of a board and local councils. Collective parties could outlay decisions that have similarity between effects and decisions obtained by individuals. However, the final decisions could not be identified to any specific individual in the group. Subsequently, there is the exercise of power among the individuals in the group to indicate a struggle to exercise power over each other.

To summarize the functionalist concept of power, the theory incorporates a focus on the intentions of people and on the specific behaviors that normally manifest in the demonstrations of authority. The concept of power is relatively static, promoting the ideology of relations of power as to be observable immediately in relation to effects and is various situations as fixed in a time period and through issues. Rational models and methods of people’s interaction do not incorporate all the power dimensions and mostly include the exercise of power and the ignorance of the insidious power forms. Consequently, there has been a decline in the interest of the processes of comparing and quantifying power effects. Significantly, there is a rapid decrease in research studies conducted to further elaborate the functionalist theory (Kearins, 1996). The decline is characterized by several sociological theory debates regarding the nature of power that explains that it is valuable.



Radical conception of power

In the extension of the interests in power, there is not only the inclusion of the exercise of power during decision-making processes but also the exercised power in confinement of decision making to be conducted safely. It includes non-decision making and decision making. Luke (2005) has developed a theory that was based criticism of the functionalist theory that is elaborated to be over committed to the study of the actual decision-making behaviors of individuals. Luke’s elaboration indicates that the sustainability of the system is not only based on an individual’s specific actions but also culturally and socially constructed behavior patterns of groups including institution practices that are significantly manifested in actions by individuals.

Luke (2005) further elaborates another power dimension as a model used to shape the cognition and perception of others, to make what the individuals consider as their interests as transformed radically. The position taken by Luke in the instance highlights power complexity and difficulties in confining observations of power to visible behaviors that directly manifest in conflict situations. Therefore, Luke’s explanations have more focus on conflict than exercised actions. Power in his perspective can be implemented by groups or individuals either consciously or unconsciously hence there is no incorporation of institutionalized power. Therefore, power cannot be reduced to intentions by specific individuals.

Foucault’s Case for Elaborating Power

In understanding the advancement of human science since the 19th century, Foucault elaborates that there were a growing and increase in knowledge about the advancement of control and a propagation of power instruments. The exercise of power is done via institutions that elaborate the experience of people and increase the extension of the power effects. Foucault displays the institutions that are executing social standards via a method of internment and exclusion (Kearins, 1996). When the institutions are systematically employed, the above means of power instill norms that enable control. Foucault in his interest of power did not clearly elaborate his perception of power. As he advanced his research, he acknowledged the centrality and importance of power. Foucault does not base his earlier arguments on the definition of power, however, he emphasizes on the manner in which power is exercised.

Progressively, Foucault in further elucidating power addresses several questions in several pints of the analysis. Foucault elaborates that there is no exact theory that can clearly explain the conception of power. He explains that the concept can be addressed only within specific domains within which power is present and the structures that support the exercise. In his research, Foucault came up with several; features that elaborate power. The attributes were obtained from interpretations from commentators and Foucault’s writings (Kearins 1996).

First, Foucault elaborated that there is the exercise of power and no possession. That power does not exist in a substantive model but it does in a nominal logic. Power is not a positions, commodity, plot or prize. However, it is the process of conducting radical technologies via social aspects. Power is inherent in within the aspect of people’s relationships. It is not attributed to a specific individual, however, it is exercised by an organization described as a group of people who are in a position to simultaneously exercise power. Foucault specifies power cannot be static but is constantly exercised. He elaborates that power circulates and is constantly produced in every moment. Power can be directed from all directions, from the bottom to the top or vice versa.

Second, Foucault explained that power is productive and positive and not repressive as elaborated in the Marxist conceptualization. Foucault wrote that power does not just exert force by expressing negative answers, however, it traverses and results in positive things including; knowledge, pleasure and the production of discourse (Kearins 1996). Foucault encourages people to understand power as a network that is productive and running through the social set up of individuals. That power is not a repression function and it could result in major positivity. The resistance of power also is a positive aspect that is necessary for power relations.

Thirdly, there is a relational bond between power and knowledge. Power like knowledge is based on a social construct. Knowledge is a product of power and there is no existence of the relation of power without a correlation and constitution of a knowledge field. Knowledge and power are not linked by a relationship of effect and cause. Progressively, they are not independent and correlate in most situations (Kearins 1996). Power mechanisms are simultaneously used in the accumulation and formation of knowledge. In the process of knowing and learning to know an individual, there exists a refined exercise of power until the subject being identified creates a self-discipline effect on the whole process. The relation of power and knowledge is of identification and not predication. Foucault’s elaboration of power and knowledge is identified as being heuristic.

In his fourth explanation, Foucault explains the power and in addition to knowledge functions via discourse. Power relations cannot be implemented, consolidated or established without the circulation, accumulation, production, and operationalization of a discourse (Powell 2003). The existence of exercise of power is void when there is an absence of particular discourse economies of truth that they operate on and are established on the basis of the same association.

Fifth is disciplinary power, Foucault explains it as being a distinct form of the concept of sovereignty in power. Additionally, activity structures temporally and spatially up to a point that power is internalized and to further become invisible (Kearins 1996). Power described as coercion that is not hidden was ousted by detailed disciplinary activities but sustained monitoring and observation of conduct. The concept of power according to Foucault is based on monitoring, training, reform, surveillance, and intervention. The disciplinary power regime replaced monarchy and church. The strategies and instruments incorporated by disciplinary power can be used by various institutions including; schools, hospitals, agencies of Bureau, police forces and prisons.

The sixth elaboration outlines that circulation of power is characterized by constant maintenance and reproduction over program ranges, strategies, and technologies that are less or more evident. An example of the case in practices that would limit who makes and statement and limit the content of the message. Power is attributed to strategically and complex relationship within a society (Kearins 1996). Progressively, there is an achievement of strategic relationships due to the resistance of individuals that are subjected to the relationship. Therefore, relationships based on power are not fixed and are neither immutable.

Another power aspect of life is the pastoral power that elaborates individuals disciplining themselves. It is a type of power that is applied to the everyday life of individuals. Individuals are described based on the identity that they attach themselves to. Individuals significantly should impose levels of truth on themselves (Powell 2003). This type of power makes people be subjects. There is no production of conformity in the identification of subjects. Peculiarities, deviances, and differences are highlighted more in control systems that are concerned to find them out. Individualism is simply not associated with power but is a major effect of power and its constitution is based on power.

Foucault subsequently had elaborations on the study of micro power. In his study, he indicates that strategies within an individual could create hope within an individual for them to develop a difference. If there is the existence of power resistance at the local body, institutional changes could result in differentiation in the effects of institution multiplicity. Foucault during his last research developed a model for linking government to power. It is elaborated as conduct regulation of a specific individual to be associated with the objective of the improvement of the condition of people in a population (Kearins, 1996). It is the management of lives. Foucault's interests were mainly based on the far reaching effects of power.

Conclusion

Conclusively, there are several concepts that elaborate Foucault’s understanding of power. First and the main concept elaborates that power cannot be possessed, however, it can be exercised. Power is exercised from the bottom towards the top according to Foucault, It circulates within an organizational formation. Foucault elaborates that power also could be effected from the top to the bottom. Foucault accepts that there is the existence of power modalities, however, he does not agree on all the effects encompassing them. By elaboration, in that manner, he develops a notion of the creation of resistant subjects within the topic of power. Since the inception of Foucault’s arguments on power, the functionalist explanation of power was subsided since its arguments did not have a logical impact on the lives of the people. It was mainly based on theories researched with limited evidence, however, Foucault’s explanations did not incorporate theories but had logical explanations for the understanding of power.

Paradigmatically, the work done by Foucault is challenging to define. Despite his few theories objecting to the functionalist theories, the assumptions that are defined in the theories are implicit to Foucault’s explanations. Both conceptualizations possess similarities for the perspectives of their explanations. The separation of Foucault’s theories is due to the differentiation with Marx’s opinions on power. Despite the radical elaborations being indicated to be incompatible with Foucault’s work, they have various aspects of the same reality. In the adaptation of the Foucault's perspective, individuals learn how power is exercised in specific programs, strategies, technologies, and organizations. Foucault's theories insist on the aspect of circulation of power than its possession.

References

Barnes, B. (2000). Understanding agency: social theory and responsible action. London [etc.]: Sage.

Kearins, K. (1996). Power in Organisational Analysis: Delineating and Contrasting a Foucauldian Perspective. [online] Available at: http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ejrot/Vol2_2/kearins.pdf [Accessed 14 Aug. 2017].

Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A Radical View by. 6th ed. pp.87-95.

Powell, J. (2003). Foucauldian Gerontology: A Methodology for Understanding Aging. Salford: Electronic Journal of Sociology (EJS).